Ilisu-Update February 2006

Weltwirtschaft, Ökologie & Entwicklung World Economy, Ecology & Development

WEED Ilisu-update February 2006 ****************************************************************************

** Environmental impact study and resettlement action plan published p. 1 ** Independent review of documents p. 2 ** Export credit insurance requested p. 2 ** No fi nancing so far: who is going to invest in this scandalous project? p. 3 ** Concerns over Ilisu Project not dispelled p. 4 ** Local resistance is growing p. 6 ** International Water Conference in Diyarbakir p. 6 ** Sale of VA Tech Hydro announced for end of February p. 7 ** New WEED publication: “Der Ilisu-Staudamm: Kein Erfolgsprojekt.” p. 8 ** Information on the European Ilisu Campaign p. 8

** Environmental impact study and resettlement action plan published

On the 25.11.2005, VA Tech Hydro, the compa- 2. Criticism not dispelled: In the fi rst run-up to ny in charge of the Ilisu Consortium, published the project, 1998 – 2002, a resettlement plan the updated environmental impact asessment and an environmental impact assessment had (UEIA) and a resettlement action plan for the also been compiled and promises had been Ilisu Project on its own website.1 given to comply with international standards. At the time, the untenable shortcomings of In the accompanying PR campaign, the com- the studies, which resulted in the failure of panies attempted to give the impression that the project, were only revealed by an inde- criticism had been dispelled with these stud- pendent review. Once again, grave omissions ies and that the project could now go ahead. have been identifi ed in initial check of the new None of this is correct. documents. This is why claiming that the mere submittal of environmental impact studies and 1. No fi nancing: While the project contract- the resettlement plan is the solution to the ing agency and consortium (headed by VA problems this scandalous would cause is Tech) have concluded negotiations on the frivolous. On the contrary, criticism and resist- terms of delivery, fi nancing has not been ar- ance to the project at local level is growing. ranged yet. Whether it will materialise also depends on the forthcoming review of envi- The studies were originally published in English ronmental impact assessments and the re- only. Owing to the massive pressure of European settlement plan. But the sale contract cannot and Turkish activists, the Turkish authorities gave

1 http://www.ilisu-wasserkraftwerk.com/page.php

1 Ilisu-Update February 2006 ment plan in Turkish. The en- This procedure shows that it vironmental impact assess- is far more important for the ment is to be issued in Turk- project operators to pacify ish in February; as yet, only the critical public in Europe a summary has been issued. than to enable the popula- tion’s true participation.

Zeynelbey Tomb (Photo: Heike Drillisch)

** Independent review of documents

Non-governmental organisations in Europe and At local level, examinations are underway on as well as international experts are cur- the quality of the surveys commissioned by the rently subjecting the more than 1,500 pages Turkish water authority. Initial results are to be of studies to a thorough review. expected by the end of February 2006.

** Export credit insurance requested

Since the end of 2005, formal applications for have raised their standards. They have agreed government export credit guarantees have also on considering the stringent recommendations been submitted to the export credit agencies of the World Commission on (WCD) for (ECAs) of , and by VA hydro-electric power stations with extended Tech and Züblin. The Austrian, German and Swiss terms of payment. As yet, there is no indication governments are thus supposed to bear the risk that the Ilisu Project is going to fulfil the condi- of default owing to economic difficulties or po- tions imposed on it this time. Thus the Austri- litical unrest and hence contribute to borrowing an, German or Swiss Governments’ assuming on more favourable terms liability is untenable and for the consortium. In the would trigger a considerable The export credit agencies first run-up to the project, amount of criticism interna- in 2001, the export cred- - Österreichische Kontrollbank (Austria) tionally. The ECAs are cur- it agencies had required - Exportrisikogarantie ERG (Switzerland) rently reviewing the newly the project operators to - Euler Hermes Kreditversicherung (Germany) submitted documents. In a fulfil a number of condi- joint letter to the Austrian, tions.2 These were not met; Swiss and German export instead, owing to the irresolvable environmental credit agencies, the mayors of many of the and social problems, nearly all the banks and towns affected as well as local NGOs and ac- companies withdrew from the project. Meanwhile, tivists demanded that the people affected by the export credit agencies of the OECD countries the project be guaranteed at least two months

2 Compiling a resettlement plan, maintaining water quality, ensuring sufficient downstream flows to the neighbouring coun- tries, preserving as much as possible of Hasankeyf.

2 Ilisu-Update February 2006 to view the documents and formulate statements ish-language petitions regarding the resettle- from the date of issue of the publications on in a ment plan. A deadline for comments in comprehensible to them. After all, tens on the environmental impact assessment is yet of thousands of people are to involuntarily give to be announced. Since the ERG has addition- up their livelihoods and environment and are fac- ally committed itself to assess dam projects in ing an uncertain future. Contrary to the provisions light of the WCD guidelines, a multi-stakeholder made in international standards, they have so far process, as provided for by the WCD, is to begin hardly been involved in the planning process – nei- in Switzerland in March. ther with regard to plans for their own resettlement nor with respect to the relocation of cultural assets A wide range of actors – ERG, dam contractors, of importance to them, whether these be cultural civil society groups – will jointly assess whether treasures such as the antique city of Hasankeyf or the Ilisu Project meets international standards the graves of their next of kin. and the guidelines of the World Commission on Dams, the WCD. The Swiss export credit agency ERG set the 20th February 2006 as the deadline for statements. In response to the letter from Turkey, it has now granted an extension to the 20th March for Turk-

** No financing so far: who is going to invest in this scandalous project?

It is still not clear which banks could be will- that they to not intend to participate in the Ili- ing to finance the Ilisu Dam. The involvement su Dam. The Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS), of private banks in this risky project without which was in charge of financing in the first run- official export credit insurance is improbable. up to the project, explicitly bases this on the con- In order to find out which banks are consider tinuing environmental and social problems: The ing to participate, company side states WEED, Eca-Watch- From an UBS letter to Berne Declaration of that Turkish firms are Austria and the Berne the 31st January 2006: also interested and Declaration have are capable of financ- contacted a large “As you rightly observe, UBS withdrew from financ- ing the dam. number of banks ing the Ilisu Dam Project in 2002 owing to envi- together with Bank- ronmental and social reservations. At present, However, NGOs in Track, pointed out the there is hardly any indication of the issues con- Turkey and Europe dangers this project sidered critical in the 2002 decision having been hold that this is en- entails at local level sufficiently resolved.” tirely unrealistic and and regarding their represents an obvi- institutions’ reputa- ous attempt by the tion and requested information on how they view consortium to raise pressure to arrive at a posi- the project. Several banks have already stated tive decision among the ECAs.

3 Ilisu-Update February 2006

** Concerns over Ilisu Project not dispelled.

An initial fleeting check of the environmen- intimidation. Furthermore, VA Tech claims tal impact assessment and the resettlement that 100% of the households to be resettled plan already reveals several shortcomings have been consulted. However, NGO sourc- in the studies.3 es indicate that this has not been the case. Moreover, an international delegation that Moreover, it is particularly worrying that the visited the region in late October noted that project description by VA Tech makes no frequently, only male heads of households mention of the armed conflict in the region. had been interviewed. In other cases, people But neither is compliance with international reported that they had been ordered to come standards conceivable nor is the involuntary to a police station where they were simply resettlement of many thousands of people informed that the dam would be built. tenable in an atmosphere of violence and

Framework conditions of dam construction continue to be unacceptable The situation in the project region shows all too clearly that framework conditions in the Southeast of Turkey in no way allow for the implementation of such a project without a grave deterioration in the living standards of the population and without massive violations of human rights.

Homestead near Hasankeyf threatened by flooding (Photo: Heike Drillisch) This includes:

1. The risk of poverty for tens of thousands of people: The bitter conflict between the Kurdish Work- ers’ Party PKK and the Turkish Armed Forces as well as the dams that have already been built in the Southeast of Turkey have resulted in an enormous exodus to the region’s metropolises. The districts there having to cope with the influx have an up to 70 % rate of unemployment; there is a lack of food, clean water, infrastructure, accommodation and jobs. As the mayors of Diyarbakir and Batman state themselves, their municipalities are not in a position to take on further victims of resettlement. According to VA Tech, social compensation programmes are planned. However, expe- rience with dams in other countries shows that such programmes are frequently incapable of off- setting the negative consequences for those affected by the schemes. This is why we are alarmed

3 For instance, the numbers of people affected vary in the resettlement plan. Moreover, neither is a specific “social action plan” for all villages partly affected in place nor has the resettlement budget been earmarked so far. According to the World Bank guidelines, people must not be worse off after a compulsory resettlement than they were before it, and if possible, living standards should rise. In the case of the Ilisu Dam, it has to be feared that a large number of those affected are going to lose their livelihoods without receiving any appropriate compensation. Additionally, there are considerable doubts about the quality of surveys among those affected and the hydrological evaluation. Quotes from the resettlement plan suggest that people have not had the project’s impacts sufficiently explained to them.

4 Ilisu-Update February 2006

at the Bujagali Dam in Uganda being given as a reference in the environmental management plan. This is a prime example of failed dam construction. The companies withdrew from the uncomplet- ed project without looking after the fate of those resettled. The latter are now living in great poverty in half-finished houses and do not even have water, electricity or land titles.

2. Violation of international standards not ruled out in compiling environmental impact assess- ments and resettlement plan: A number of finance institutions and international organisations have established standards for the planning and implementation of large-scale projects in order to ensure a minimum of social and environmental compatibility. These include the OECD, the World Bank, the EBRD and the World Commission on Dams. The recommendations of the World Com- mission on Dams, which are regarded as the most important ones in the area of hydro-electric power stations, provide for negotiations on the dam in a multi-stakeholder process and stipulate that free prior informed consent on the construction of the dam be arrived at among all stakehold- ers (www.dams.org). All information available to us suggests that this is not the case with the Ilisu Dam. But other international guidelines such as those of the EBRD also already stipulate transpar- ency in the planning stage. While VA Tech has had talks with non-governmental organisations in Europe and has now published two extensive studies, prior to this, it was hardly possible at local level to obtain information on the project status. The meeting in Ankara, in which the government authorities decided on relocating Hasankeyf, took place without the people affected. Not even the Mayor of Hasankeyf, Vahap Kusen, had been invited.

The publication of the environmental impact assessment and the resettlement plan, which only commenced following pressure from Europe, clearly demonstrates that there can be no mention of a transparent and participatory approach to gaining free prior informed consent. On the contrary, the mayors of the towns in which people have to make room for the dam region are vehemently resisting the project.

3. Peace in the region is an indispensable prerequisite for a large-scale project with compulsory resettlement: While the human rights situation in the East and the Southeast of Turkey has shown a tendency to improve since 2000, violent conflicts have been on the increase again since April 2005. Only recently, in December, a violent conflict close to the planned construction site resulted in many deaths. Torture is still commonplace, and from March to May 2005 alone, the human rights organisation IHD recorded 2,262 cases of human rights abuse in provinces dominated by . So a violent and intimidating environment still prevails. However, a large-scale project en- tailing the destruction of a habitat for thousands of people can only be implemented legitimately and responsibly if an open atmosphere of freedom of speech allows for a true participation of the population. This essential prerequisite is clearly not given in the case of the Ilisu Dam.

4. Cultural assets are threatened: The region in which the Ilisu Reservoir is to be created accommo- dates a large number of important historic sites. Already in the Stone Age, people settled here more than 9,000 years ago and erected permanent settlements, grew crops and started to build temples to worship gods. Later, the paths of Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Abbassids, Byzantines and Seljuks crossed here. The antique city of Hasankeyf enjoys particular attention. This place, which can look back on a history covering several thousands of years, holds a rich historical heritage of a wide range of civilisations and peoples. Situated on the , it used to be an important su- pra-regional economic centre. Since the , the city has been a destination for countless Muslim pilgrims owing to its being the site of Imam Abdullah’s grave, which attracts no less than 30,000 pilgrims a year. It accommodates unique artefacts of the past such as the pillars of a gigan- tic medieval bridge, from the 15th century, a robber baron castle and tens of thousands of caves some of which continue to be inhabited until nowadays. Thanks to its significance, Hasan-

5 Ilisu-Update February 2006

keyf was already granted full archaeological protection by the Turkish Ministry of Cultural Affairs in 1978. However, Hasankeyf is not only of importance to its inhabitants and the Kurdish people as a whole, but it is also a world cultural heritage. While rescue measures have been planned for individual monuments and archaeological sites, archaeologists have again and again stressed that the docu- mentation and relocation of individual sites in no way does justice to the significance of Hasankeyf.

5. No agreements with the neighbouring states: In its press release of the 26.11.2005, VA Tech announces that water flowing off to Syria and will be guaranteed and that its volume has even been raised in comparison to that of the original project plan. However, there is no mention of a binding agreement with the neighbouring states. If this is lacking, legal experts hold that the project will continue to represent a violation of international law, e.g. of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigable Uses of International Watercourses, the UN/ECE Convention on the Protection and Use of International Watercourses and Lakes as well as the ESPOO Convention on environmental impact assessments.

** Local resistance is growing

Meanwhile, activities in the Ilisu Region are in resettlement plan are to be analysed. Legal ac- full swing. The Hasankeyf Platform in Diyarba- tion will also be considered. In addition to in the kir has opened a secretariat that around 15 or- provincial capital of Diyarbakir, opposition to the ganisations in all participate in.4 A meeting early dam is also growing in the county town of Bis- in January was attended by the mayors of the mil, the provincial capital of Batman, its famous Dam region’s major cities (Diyarbakir, Batman, district town, Hasankeyf, and the district town of Hasankeyf, Dargecit and ). A forum on Dargecit, which belongs to . This opposi- the Ilisu Dam is to take place in mid-February. tion is to be voiced at local level and brought to The environmental impact assessment and the Europe as well.

** International Water Conference in Diyarbakir

Already on the 29th/30th October 2005, an ing the meeting. In addition, the entire confer- international water conference was held in the ence was monitored by the police, and some region’s biggest city, Diyarbakir. For the first participants had been put under pressure not time, this event brought together environmental to attend in advance. Nevertheless, the ap- activists from the region, representatives of af- prox. 70 participants described the meeting as fected communities, scientists and international very productive and called it an important step experts on dams so that they could share their towards initiating a national public debate on experience with dam building. However, rep- dams. In connection with the conference, the resentatives of the GAP and the Turkish Water participants from abroad visited the city of Has- Authority gave short notice of their not attend ankeyf, which is threatened by flooding, and

4 The following are involved in the Secretariat: GABB (Association of Local Communities in Southeast Turkey), TMMOB- Diyarbakir (Association of Architects’ and Engineers’ Chambers), Local Agenda 21, Diyarbakir/Batman Bar Associa- tion, the Municipal Authorities of Hasankeyf, Hasankeyf Volunteers’ Association. In addition, the platform is supported by the human rights association IHD, the organisation of displaced people Göc-Der, CEKÜL (Foundation for the Preser- vation of Ecological and Cultural Values), the Museum Association, CevGön (Environmental Volunteers’ Association) and the Municipal Authorities of the Municipal Districts of Yenisehir and Diyarbakir Metropolitan, the City of Bismil and the City of Dargecit.

6 Ilisu-Update February 2006 talked to large numbers of inhabitants from the justified. Experience with resettlements in Tur- surrounding villages. They reported on the sur- key so far and the above-mentioned framework veys commissioned by the project operators. In conditions would appear to speak against this. the main, the interviews had concentrated on the socio-economic conditions of the families, confronting them with a large number of con- fusing and biased questions. The surveys con- ducted so far had not integrated the population into the project planning process. Many people nevertheless stated that they wished to remain in their villages. Owing to the harsh conditions they were living in, others approved of a reset- tlement in principle, but only if a guarantee was given that their living standards would improve. Only a review of the resettlement plans can show whether hoping for this to come about is

International water conference in Diyarbakir at 30th. of October 2005

** Sale of VA Tech Hydro announced for end of February

Consortium leader VA Tech Hydro is still up for val, reduced its number of orders). Obviously, sale. The EU Commission approved the takeover management is now attempting to take advan- of VA Tech by the German company Siemens in tage of what really is a problematic situation for June 2005. However, for competition reasons, the the company to gain public approval of a highly EU Commission made this conditional on the re- problematic project. However, this is entirely irre- sale of VA Tech’s Hydro branch. According to Sie- sponsible towards the people affected in Turkey. mens` plans, the sale is to be concluded by the end of February and yield more than 300 million Towards the end of November, WEED, Eca-Watch euros. Four contestants remain on board. From Austria and the Berne Declaration had submitted Austria, there are Graz plant constructors Andritz written information about the problems and risks and the Cross Consortium of KTM chief share- the Ilisu Dam entails to all companies on the short- holder Stefan Pierer (with UIAG and Porr). And list of possible buyers and called on them not to then there are the Argentine energy specialists participate in the project given the current condi- Impsa and the Indian conglomerate Tata Power. tions. Additionally, together with the Umbrella As- Germany’s Allianz Group, who co-operate inten- sociation of Critical Shareholders (“Dachverband sively with Siemens and of which Euler Hermes der Kritischen Aktionärinnen und Aktionäre”), Credit Assurance are also a member, have with- WEED informed the Siemens shareholders about drawn their bid. the problems relating to the Dam at the Siemens General Assembly on the 25.1.2006, and it criti- Meanwhile, VA Tech employees are facing an un- cised Siemens’ lack of corporate responsibility certain future. The selling off of the firm is gener- in the area of dams. The European NGO network ally expected to result in redundancies, so that is also going to hold VA Tech’s future owners re- concern among the staff is understandably high. sponsible for the project’s impacts. According to media reports, owing to the forth- coming sale of the company, insecurity regard- ing its future and its proximity to Siemens, VA Tech Hydro has only been able to acquire a small number of orders (mainly General Electrics, so far the prime commissioning party and Siemens ri-

7 Ilisu-Update February 2006

** New WEED publication: “Der Ilisu-Staudamm: Kein Erfolgsprojekt.” In November 2005, WEED published an extensive Der Ilisu-Staudamm: Kein Erfolgsprojekt. Zum study on the Ilisu Dam covering the framework Hintergrund und aktuellen Stand des größten conditions of Turkish dam construction policy, Staudammprojekts im Südosten der Türkei. the current level of planning, the new consorti- um and financing options as well as the expected Authors: D. Setton, H. Drillisch, F. Bozyigit, J. Ney- environmental, social, archaeological and geopo- er. Commissioned by F. Uca (MdEP). Nov. 2005. litical impacts. URL: http://www2.weed-online.org/uploads/ In addition, the regulatory framework at national Ilisu _Kein-Erfolgsprojekt.pdf. and European level is discussed and an account is given of protest emerging at local level.

** Information on the European Ilisu Campaign Who we are: We work for non-governmental or- ganisations in Austria, Belgium, the United King- dom, Switzerland and Germany, all of which are part of the international campaign for a reform of export credit agencies. What we are doing: Our activities consist of monitoring export credit agencies (ECAs), drawing attention to their significance and pressing for compliance with and the reform of environmental, social and hu- man rights standards. We co-operate with people affected by infrastructure projects financed by ECAs in other countries and support these people. We organise protest and provide critical knowledge.

What we demand: We call for higher environmental and social standards as well as transparency in promoting exports and try to help create an opportunity for people affected to present their causes and demands to the decision-makers in the countries involved in financing the projects. The goals of the Ilisu Campaign are: · to develop and maintain public pressure to keep the export credit agencies from supporting the construction of the Ilisu Dam; · to call on the companies involved to meet their social and environmental responsibility; · to take advantage of the accession negotiations between Turkey and the EU to promote compliance with environmental, human rights and social EU standards and - to support protest at local level. European organisations involved: WEED Weltwirtschaft, Ökologie und Entwicklung (Berlin); FERN (Brussels); ECA-WATCH Austria (Vien- na); Berne Declaration, (Zurich); Corner House (London); Kurdish Human Rights Project (London)

Further details: WEED – Weltwirtschaft, Ökologie und Entwicklung Heike Drillisch: [email protected] , ++49 – 030 – 275 82 249 Eca-Watch-Österreich Nonno Breuss: [email protected], ++43 – 650 – 586 39 12 Berne Declaration Christine Eberlein: [email protected], ++41 – 1 – 277 70 08 The Corner House Nick Hildyard: nick@fifehead.demon.co.uk, ++ 44-1258-473795 Kurdish Human Rights Project Rochelle Harris: [email protected], ++ 44-207-405 38 35

Translation and final editing: Mike Gardner This update has been produced with kind support of: C.S.Mott Foundation (USA).

8